Thursday, January 29, 2015

The public display in Rome of the 5000 plus antiquities seized in Basel, Switzerland were a reminder of the scale of archaeological material surfacing on the market. The objects were seized alongside photographs and bundles of receipts. And so there are museums that will need to respond to the identification of material in their collections.

The Michael C. Carlos Museum at Emory University was the subject of a report in 2007, followed by a request by the Greek authorities to return three items acquired in 2002 and 2004. Will the museum reveal the full collecting histories of the three pieces? Will they explain why the pieces are linked to the Basel archive?

this is a 21st-century crime being conducted purposefully, in full view and on social media.

Those of who attended the meeting at the British Academy on this topic earlier this month were given an informed position, both by those making presentations and through contributions from the audience. It is not made clear how Jenrick conducted his research or obtained the information to assert:

Through systematic looting, these works of art are funding the murderous activities of IS. Indeed, these activities are now believed to be their third largest source of revenue, after oil and robbing banks. A brave network of informants, today’s “Monuments Men”, give us shocking reports from the ground: IS employing contractors with bulldozers to harvest antiquities on an industrial scale; IS deploying militants to ensure their control sites and “supervise” digging; and licensing looting with a formal “tithe” of around 20%. The sums involved are difficult to gauge, but likely run into tens of millions of dollars of income for IS and other terrorist groups

So what can government do? The key to fighting the trade in illicit antiquities lies in co-operation. In the UK and the US we are asking for coordinators to be appointed who can establish forums to bring together law enforcement, museum representatives, government and representatives of the art trade.

He may be unaware that these dialogues are already taking place.

But in the article he does not state his past and apparently continuing links with Christies (and see also the information provided through his constituency). He writes:

But above all, we need to promote and reward good market behaviour. And to the surprise of critics, there is much of it going on amongst major players in the industry. The decision of a number of auction houses to significantly increase their due diligence, principally by requiring evidence of provenance predating the conflicts of the early 21st century (using the year 2000 as an immovable date) is hugely welcome. If only objects with provenance of this kind can be sold, the market for illicit works will shrink. There is early evidence that this is changing the behaviour of buyers and sellers. If these standards could become common practice they will not only change the market, but ultimately feedback to those on the ground in Iraq, Syria and future conflict zones.

Readers of LM will know that I have touched on "due diligence" many times as a topic, and I am not convinced that all the major auction houses understand the issues when it comes to dealing with archaeological material. Moreover Jenrick's use of the (obsolete) term "provenance" (one held dear by the market) needs to be clarified. Is he wanting to establish the archaeological context from which an object was removed (e.g. a sanctuary area at Dura Europos) or who has handled the piece (i.e. the collecting history)? He then turns to concerns about restrictions on the market:

Those of us who oppose an outright ban on antiquities—believing it would be counter-productive, creating a black market in which both antiquities of licit and illicit origin were traded—or of further restrictive laws and treaties, welcome the voluntary actions of the industry and hope they quickly become common standards that protect the industry from the heavy hand of some law-makers.

Can I suggest that auction-houses could address well-founded concerns by presenting the full and authenticated collecting histories of objects when they are listed in the public catalogues? And transparency is what Jenrick wants to see:

Our transatlantic campaign seeks to recognise and support those in the art business who take a lead, by urging co-operation, sharing of information in relationships of trust and resourcing and prioritising law enforcement—backing good market behaviour; tackling the unethical and the criminal robustly.

I agree with his desire: to 'tackle' 'unethical' behaviour in the market. And that is why it is so important for auction houses to respond constructively to concerns when objects are identified from seized photographic images.

Becchina’s archive contains photographs of both sides of an Oriental-style Italic Amphora with a Wounded Deer from the seventh century BC, height 52cm, whose dimensions are clearly important enough to note down. The Madrid catalogue, showing a similar object, says of its provenance that “the location is unknown, making it difficult to ascribe it to a specific Italic workshop”.

This orientalizing amphora is impressive (inv. 1999/99/159). Its condition suggests that it had been placed in an Italic tomb. So what was the collecting history before the amphora has handled by Becchina?

The curatorial staff need to be reviewing the 22 pieces that were identified by Isman as a matter of urgency. Becchina material could now be considered as "toxic" acquisitions in the light of the 5000 plus objects that were revealed last week.

Monday, January 26, 2015

The 5000 or so antiquities revealed in Rome as a result of "Operation Teseo" were the stock of a Basel gallery. But the photographic dossier from the same source point to a series of major international museums that were buying from the same source. For now we can list the countries:

Saturday, January 24, 2015

I have had the privilege of seeing the new #Sappho poems but was sworn to secrecy!
— Bettany Hughes (@bettanyhughes) January 30, 2014

At the end of January 2014 Bettany Hughes commented that she had seen the new Sappho papyrus fragments. This was in preparation for her Sunday Times article that appeared on 2 February. In that piece it was claimed:

The elderly owner of our new Sappho papyrus wishes to remain anonymous, and its provenance is obscure (it was originally owned, it seems, by a high-ranking German officer), but he was determined its secrets should not die with him.

Yet now Dirk Obbink has rejected this in an interview published on 23 January 2015.

Obbink characterized Hughes' story as a "fictionalization" and an "imaginative fantasy."

Who is telling the truth here? Or have Hughes and Obbink both presented (perhaps unwittingly) separate 'fictionalised' accounts? What makes the collecting history presented by Obbink more trustworthy? What is the authenticated and documented collecting history for the papyrus?

Can we believe that the fragments came from the Robinson collection? Has Obbink provided sufficient compelling evidence?

And why did it take from 2 February 2014 to 23 January 2015 for Obbink to reject Hughes' account?

Friday, January 23, 2015

Christos Tsirogiannis and I have published "“A Fracture in Time”: A Cup Attributed to the Euaion Painter from the Bothmer Collection" that is now available in the latest number of the International Journal of Cultural Property 21, 4 (2014) [DOI]. IJCP is published by Cambridge University Press.

The paper considers the issue of "orphaned" figure-decorated pottery fragments.

Abstract
In February 2013 Christos Tsirogiannis linked a fragmentary Athenian red-figured cup from the collection formed by Dietrich von Bothmer, former chairman of Greek and Roman Art at New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art, to a tondo in the Villa Giulia, Rome. The Rome fragment was attributed to the Euaion painter. Bothmer had acquired several fragments attributed to this same painter, and some had been donated to the Metropolitan Museum of Art as well as to the J. Paul Getty Museum. Other fragments from this hand were acquired by the San Antonio Museum of Art and the Princeton University Art Museum. In January 2012 it was announced that some fragments from the Bothmer collection would be returned to Italy, because they fitted vases that had already been repatriated from North American collections. The Euaion painter fragments are considered against the phenomenon of collecting and donating fractured pots.

Wednesday, January 21, 2015

For further details of the return to Italy see "Record €50m hoard of looted Italian antiquities unveiled by police", The Guardian January 22, 2015. LM is mentioned in the piece and I discuss the related documentation: "the documentation will likely point to objects that were now in top museums and would certainly be on the Italians’ list for repatriation".

It is likely that objects in European collections such as Amsterdam and Madrid will be investigated further.

For further details on Gianfranco Becchina see this overview and also this link.

The Sicilian press has started to report on the handover of some 5000 objects at the Terme di Diocleziano del Museo Nazionale Romano this morning ("Ricettazione internazionale: Restituiti 5 mila reperti storici", Live Sicilia January 21, 2015). This group appears to be formed by the objects seized from warehouses associated with Gianfranco Becchina in Basel who is named in the article.

Tuesday, January 20, 2015

I understand that there will be a press conference tomorrow (21 January 2015) at the Museo Nazionale Romano alle Terme di Diocleziano. It appears that there will be a statement about a major batch of recovered antiquities.

This is likely to be an important development. If it relates to the stock of a dealer, then there are implications for those museums, private collectors, and galleries that purchased from that same source.

I have commented on the previously stated collecting history before. Now it appears that a new account has appeared "It was one of two pieces flat inside a sub-folder (folder 'E3') inside a main folder (labelled 'Papyri Fragments; Gk."), one of 59 packets of papyri fragments sold at auction at Christies in London in November 2011". Obbink thus places the new Sappho fragment in the David M. Robinson collection (and for the text of the discussion of the catalogue see discussion by Roberta Mazza here).

Lot 1 of Christies South Kensington sale on 28 November 2011 contained the following:

59 packets of papyri fragments, approximately 20 x 45mm to 300 x 100mm, the majority in Greek, from various manuscripts containing texts in a variety of hands and including documentary, petitionary and literary excerpts, receipts, contracts and accounts. A number of fragments belonged to the collection of David M. Robinson, a large part of which was subsequently bequeathed to the Library of the University of Mississippi. The collection is briefly described by William H. Willis in 'The New Collections of Papyri at the University of Mississippi', Proceedings of the IX International Congress of Papyrology, 1961, pp.381-82. Two of the packets were part of the collection of P. Deaton.

Not all --- only "a number" --- the fragments came from the Robinson collection. There is, as yet, no photographic evidence that this Sappho fragment was included in this lot.

But let us suppose the fragment was indeed in a 'sub-folder' that had passed through the Christie's sale. When was the fragment placed in the sub-folder? Who placed it there? Is there a catalogue entry, or even better a photograph, conclusively linking the fragment to the Robinson collection?

Is it possible that the Robinson connection has been constructed?

Obbink needs to demonstrate the authenticated and documented collecting history of the fragment as soon as possible.

Friday, January 16, 2015

There was a helpful series of presentations at the British Academy today, sponsored by the Council for Research in the Levant. This was followed by a constructive discussion.

Dr Sam Hardy's paper reminded us of the basis for the estimates for the value of antiquities coming out of Syria.

One of the lively sections was a discussion relating to the publication of recently surfaced cuneiform tablets especially by UK scholars. There was a call for research ethics committees in UK universities to consider the issue more carefully.

A panel discussion will be taking place this afternoon (Friday 16 January 2015) at the British Academy to discuss the situation in Syria and Iraq.

Join a panel of experts to discuss cultural heritage in Syria, raise awareness of its Syrian dimension, to consider it within a regional and international context, and to look for any measures that might be taken to reduce the damage being wrought.

Cultural heritage has become a serious casualty of the ongoing civil war in Syria as widely seen in media reports describing damage to archaeological sites for both military and ideological reasons, the looting of antiquities to order to support groups like Daesh, and the rise of the illicit antiquities trade. Although less immediately tragic than the humanitarian disaster unfolding across the country, the destruction and loss of community and cultural property represents catastrophic damage that directly affects people and society, with long-term harm to culture, identity and economy.

Responses have been limited, but include efforts by the archaeological community to help the Syrians look after their heritage, including appeals made to fund training in curation and conservation, as well as assistance in identifying and monitoring the problems. These address the supply side of the problem of the illicit antiquities trade, but in the context of ongoing civil war such measures can only be limited. Less attention has been paid to the demand side of the antiquities trade, but this is an area where international action may have a far greater long-term impact.

I am particularly looking forward to hearing Dr Sam Hardy articulate his informed position on the situation (and see his "Conflict Archaeology" blog).

Readers of LM will know that I dislike the word "provenance". I have discussed the use of the term in an article in the Journal of Art Crime that can be found here.

Chris Chippindale and I suggested that we use the terms "archaeology" and "collecting history". Thus the find-spot is discussed under "archaeology", e.g. this core-formed glass alabastron was found in grave 172 of the Fikellura cemetery at Kameiros, Rhodes; or, this bronze oinochoe has no known find-spot. And collecting history charts the movement of the object from collector to auction house to museum, e.g. the Baron Icklesford collection; London market; the Hortenshaw Art Museum. (For an example of how to describe objects using this method see here.)

Yet I note that some persist in tying themselves in knots trying to explain what they mean by "provenance" or even "unprovenanced". For example, a discussion of a Late Roman treasure could have said, "we do not know where this found" (that is the "archaeology") but we know it passed through the hands of the following individuals and companies (that is the "collecting history").

So we could end up with the garbled statement: 'This "unprovenanced" Roman penknife has a "provenance" in a Soho private collection'. So let me rephrase this for clarity: "This Roman penknife has no recorded archaeological context but it formed part of a Soho private collection".

Academic readers please note: there really is no need to use the term "provenance". Find an alternative term for your publications.

Dr Donna Yates (University of Glasgow) has been interviewed by Chris Havergal for the Times Higher ('Cultural Guardian', THE 15 January 2015, 42-45). The interview starts with her experience of looting at Mayan sites. She explains her role, 'piercing together smuggling networks or studying legal mechanisms for preventing looting'.

She reflects on the impact on local communities:

It's a situation in which extremely rich and wealthy white people take complete advantage of people who can't fight back, and then blame them for it. I see it as double victimisation - these people are not only having their property taken from them, they are having their ability to construct their own identities taken from them by people who have all this power, who don't even consider it to be a problem.

She also talks about museums:

She says some museums have done "horrible" things and has little sympathy for institutions that are not honest about their past and the provenance of their artefacts.

The interview also reflects on Yates' research:

[the] project seeks to understand the relationships between communities, governments, the law and international criminal markets, with the aim of developing regulatory mechanisms for controlling the illicit antiquities trade.

Those involved in dealing with archaeological material will be concerned to read that her focus is on 'eliminating the markets for looted archaeological treasures'. She would also like to see more people 'being jailed for committing this sort of crime'. (It is not clear if she means looters, dealers or collectors.)

She sees a role for the general public:

And she believes that society at large can play a role, too, by not accepting the illicit collecting of antiquities as something that just happens, but by condemning those who deal and collect such items as "monsters".

This interview helps to remind the archaeological and museological communities why "looting matters" both in terms of the impact on unexcavated remains as well as the corruption of knowledge as objects with lost contexts enter the corpus.

"Adhering to the laws concerning protected sites (e.g. those defined as Scheduled Monuments or Sites of Special Scientific Interest: you can obtain details of these from the landowner/occupier, Finds Liaison Officer, Historic Environment Record ...)"

While you are metal-detecting

"Wherever possible working on ground that has already been disturbed (such as ploughed land or that which has formerly been ploughed), and only within the depth of ploughing. If detecting takes place on undisturbed pasture, be careful to ensure that no damage is done to the archaeological value of the land, including earthworks."

"Minimising any ground disturbance through the use of suitable tools and by reinstating any excavated material as neatly as possible. Endeavour not to damage stratified archaeological deposits."

After you have been metal-detecting

"Seeking expert help if you discover something large below the ploughsoil, or a concentration of finds or unusual material, or wreck remains, and ensuring that the landowner/occupier's permission is obtained to do so. Your local Finds Liaison Officer may be able to help or will be able to advise of an appropriate person. Reporting the find does not change your rights of discovery, but will result in far more archaeological evidence being discovered."

The Lenborough Hoard discovered just before Christmas appears to have been on a site that includes a deserted medieval village and "ridge and furrow" field system. (The Historic Environment Record for Buckinghmashire notes, "Medieval house platforms, hollow-ways and ridge and furrow seen on aerial photographs".) The fact that the hoard was found some 60 cm below the (undisturbed) surface appears to be significant.

Saturday, January 3, 2015

In late 2010 I was invited to write a forum article on 'The Portable Antiquities Scheme and the Treasure Act: Protecting the Archaeology of England and Wales?' for the Papers of the Institute of Archaeology (online). There were responses by Trevor Austin, Paul Barford, Gabriel Moschenska, Lord Renfrew and Sally Worrell (also online) and with a rejoinder by me. The text was written against the background of the 2009 Nighthawks and Nighthawking report (see some discussion from that time).

A number of issues were raised including suggestions about how the Treasure Act could be revised and strengthened. There was a tension that I highlighted:

Archaeologists would argue for the stewardship of the archaeological record and the importance of context, whereas (some) metal-detectorists are perhaps only interested in retrieving objects that can be owned either by themselves or sold on to others.

(Please note the deliberate use of some and perhaps.) Perhaps one of the disappointing issues to emerge from the forum paper was that senior staff from the Portable Antiquities Scheme failed to engage with the debate. (Sally Worrell's piece was a short discussion of the so-called Crosby Garrett helmet.)

The Lenborough hoard has been causing a storm on twitter. If this hoard was found on an undisturbed archaeological site at a depth of two feet (60 cms) then it is appropriate for the find to be discussed (see my initial reporting of the find).

Last month I hosted a research seminar given by a senior colleague from the Institute of Archaeology. He made a strong defence of the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) and I felt that there were many points of agreement between us. It was interesting to hear his views on metal-detecting articulated in such a clear way. We also discussed how senior members of PAS had lost an opportunity to make their case by declining the invitation to respond to the forum piece in PIA.

This is the sort of dialogue that should be taking place. What are the appropriate responses? How can the rich archaeological heritage of England and Wales be protected, preserved and interpreted?

Paul Coleman from the Weekend Wanderers Detecting Club discovered more than 5,000 coins buried inside a lead bucket two feet under a field near Aylesbury.

This has earlier been reported as a find made at Lenborough ("Silver coins worth £1m found on farm", Buckingham Today 31 December 2014). Paul Barford has drawn attention to the fact that the find was made at the location of a deserted medieval village, and a Medieval Manor House (see website of metal-detecting group: "Tons of history here, DMV site, Medieval Manor house and windmill site, Roman treasure found at adjacent village and much more....").

Two feet underground does not sound like a surface find. What stratigraphical and contextual information has been lost? (For a discussion of these issues see the forum article in Papers of the Institute of Archaeology 2010.)

The hoard will be considered under The Treasure Act. The FLO from the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) was present for part of the removal. The local paper reported:

Archaeologist Ros Tyrrell, the Finds Liaison Officer for Bucks, who is based at the Bucks County Museum in Aylesbury, was at the rally to record any finds made on the day, when the major hoard of more than 5,251½ Anglo Saxon silver coins was uncovered.
Miss Tyrrell was immediately called over to help excavate the coins.

We look forward to seeing the publication of the excavation as well as the finds in due course.

Thursday, January 1, 2015

One of the issues that needs to be addressed is the demand for archaeological material. Which groups are acquiring or handling such material?

Museums. Yet it is clear that since the Medici Conspiracy that most museums are cautious about acquiring freshly surfaced material. There is still some work to do on long-term loans.

Private collectors. The Medici Conspiracy has highlighted a number of 'high profile' collectors, and some of them continue to hold material that needs to be returned. (I have not forgotten about the Icklingham bronzes.)

Investors. There are some who still see archaeological material as a way as investing in 'ancient art'.

Auction houses. 'Toxic' antiquities continued to surface on the market during 2014 and it is clear that the present due diligence process needs to be made more rigorous.

Galleries and dealers. Some dealers are raising their standards but not all. Can we expect to see improved documentation for archaeological material passing through the market?

Online vendors. Does the online market place need to be monitored more rigorously? I was exploring this with students just before Christmas.

While there is a perceived demand for archaeological material, and especially high value material, the unscientific destruction of archaeological sites will continue.

The debate about the looting of archaeological sites in Syria is likely to dominate the press and the wider debate of the movement of antiquities.

I would hope that the major auction houses will review their due diligence procedures in the light of events in 2014. However I suspect some will not and we will probably continue to see "toxic antiquities" surfacing on the market. Will the company used to check the collecting histories prior to sale be asked to become more rigorous? (One solution would be to use the 1970 UNESCO Convention as a benchmark.)

I also expect the San Antonio Museum of Art to investigate which items in their collection also appear in the Medici Dossier.

I suspect that papyri will continue to be debated. Have classical and New Testament scholars grasped the ethical issues about newly surfaced material?

At a local level I hope that there will continue to be discussion about the degrading of the archaeological record in England and Wales through the unscientific searching for "goodies". I suspect that there will be limited engagement with the debate from the senior staff of the Portable Antiquities Scheme. And, related to this, please could the Icklingham Bronzes be returned from a New York private collection to Suffolk?

The mummy mask acquired by the St Louis Art Museum (SLAM) will continue to be discussed and issues raised by the Egyptian authorities. As it now appears that senior staff at SLAM were aware of the possibility that the mask had been removed from the store at Saqqara but had failed to contact the appropriate Egyptian authorities, it is likely that the Egyptian Government has retained the ethical high ground. It is also likely that the Director of SLAM will have to comment on why he did not respond to professional advice offered by North American Egyptologists.

I suspect some of my research time will be spent on looking at the issue of forgeries especially of Cycladic marble figures. We will be returning to the issue of marble figures that have lost their contexts and cannot therefore be considered as secure within the corpus of knowledge.

In May 2015 the UK will be going to the polls. I wonder if any of the parties will be bold enough to make a commitment to returning the Parthenon architectural sculptures to Athens so that they can be displayed within line of sight of the akropolis? More broadly I suspect that heritage will be a key item to help boost the UK economy through tourism but that there will be little additional funding.

FEEDJIT Recommended Reading

Feedback

Some Recommended Books

About Me

David Gill is Professor of Archaeological Heritage and Director of Heritage Futures at the University of Suffolk. He was a Rome Scholar at the British School at Rome and a Sir James Knott Fellow at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne. He was subsequently part of the Department of Antiquities at the Fitzwilliam Museum, University of Cambridge, and Reader in Mediterranean Archaeology, Swansea University. He holds the Archaeological Institute of America's Outstanding Public Service Award (2012).